November 2013 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    November 20, 2013

    bill

    I always said it was a slow-down in the rate of surface/tropospheric warming rather than a pause or hiatus, and so it proves. All bollocks anyway, when we consider OHC and the climate system as a whole, not just surface/troposphere. As someone said recently, the “satellites show no warming” poppycock de nos jours.

    Onward, ever onward.

  2. #2 Lionel A
    November 20, 2013

    The world can now see how low Australia has sunk when bottom-feeder Morano cheerleads for the Abbott misgovernment.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    November 21, 2013

    Yesterday Indonesia hated Australia, today it’s the rest of the world*:

    http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw

    [*Except Canada and Japan...]

  4. #4 adelady
    November 21, 2013

    Australia was accused of not taking the negotiations seriously. “They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in,” said a spokeswoman for Climate Action Network.

    Is there some kind of government decree that we are now supposed to emulate the delicate, diplomatic touch of a reborn Crocodile Dundee on every possible occasion?

  5. #5 BBD
    November 21, 2013

    Regulars here will know that I never say anything rude about Australia or Australians. Why should I, after all? But the behaviour of the delegates (if accurately reported) is embarrassing. If the UK delegation had behaved like this, I would join in the condemnation. Letters would be written. Ears bent.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    November 21, 2013

    BBD.

    Please feel free to express yourself. The last thing the world needs now is any pandering to the delicate sensibilities of those Australians who support the Coalition’s approach to global cooperation.

    Let us have it with both barrels. Intelligent Australians want the rest of the country to know just what the world thinks of our behaviour on the international stage.

  7. #7 Marco
    November 21, 2013

    Craig, later in the thread one “Margot” puts a link to a youtube video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8yXZr3DDTw
    It’s around the 40 second mark where the fun starts. Clearly, no caveats, and no dishonest editing.

  8. #8 BBD
    November 21, 2013

    Good Lord Marco – d’you mean to say Monckton lied?

  9. #9 Marco
    November 21, 2013

    No, BBD. Monckton never lies. He may be a bit economical with the truth, but lying…?

  10. #10 chek
    November 22, 2013

    Keep up BBD. It was a lying journalist that made the claim.

    The fact that the lying journalist was Monckton himself in no way challenges the veracity or accuracy of his statement.

  11. #11 Wow
    November 22, 2013

    “Monckton never lies. He may be a bit economical with the truth,”

    No, he aspires to a GREATER reality than the one shared by worthless “watermelons” and those villainous rationalists.

    It’s not lying, all you need to do is see that GREATER reality where it can be seen as TRUTH!

    You may have to swivel your eyes to see it.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    November 22, 2013

    Let us have it with both barrels. Intelligent Australians want the rest of the country to know just what the world thinks of our behaviour on the international stage.

    As somebody remarked, hanging is too good for those climate criminals who have usurped Australian government by spreading propaganda.

    What is Norfolk Island being used for these days? Any chance that it could revert back to a penal colony for the coalition retards and their backers – Desert [1] Island Discs of Gina Rinehart anyone?

    [1] In the sense of otherwise deserted not a sandy waste.

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2013

    Our international friends might be interested to know that the Australian media has been almost universally quiet on the G77+ walk-out at Warsaw. The only piece that I’ve seen was an apologist one for the Australian negotiators, written unsurprisingly by the Australian newspaper.

    It seems that in Australia at the moment the whole notion of being a good internatioal citizen has evaporated, even from the supposedly leftist ABC.

  14. #14 chameleon
    November 23, 2013

    Hey you guys,
    have you bothered to check the stats re nations who have/have not signed up?

  15. #15 Mack
    November 23, 2013

    Yeah ,nah, hang em high, looney Lionel et al.

  16. #16 Mack
    November 23, 2013

    Wow yes, the walkout. Wasn’t that a self-destruct.! These AGW brainwashed kids give new meaning to the phrase…”cut off your nose to spite your face”. I was looking at a few pictures of these placard holding protesters and these folk are smiling and appear happy. Obviously school’s out , and they were getting fed up with sitting on their butts in the conference room listening to the same old “serious” AGW tripe blathered on and on to them.
    They are, after all ,only a bunch of attention seekers and nobody was paying any attention to them at the non-event blabfest.
    The ABC and msm are keeping quiet about this because it a) vindicates Abbotts decision not to bother to send any ministers or anybody of any importance to this extravagant waste of time bun-fight ….and b) spells out that the wheels are really falling off the crap that is called AGW., and this is rather an embarrassment considering all the belief stories these gullible, lefty, msm AGW brainwashed twats have printed in their govt. funded newspapers.and witlessly blathered on govt. funded TV.

  17. #17 bill
    November 23, 2013

    Do you imagine, SunSpam, that anyone gives a shit what you think? About anything?

    Now, back on your thread, or we’ll get you deleted altogether.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    November 23, 2013

    Oh yes! Mack the Yack & co. is always projection with these twerps and this one has the gall to call me loony and then follow that by missing his barf bag with the effluent ending up here @ #11.

    He needs specialist help.

    I remember where I was when that came out in 66, mixing it with Sea Vixens at an air station in Somerset. Just what one needed to hear after a night on the ‘scrumpy’ or draught sherry. Turning too to operate the Sea Vixen line for Saturday morning flying.

  19. #19 BBD
    November 23, 2013

    Sunspot

    How do we get hyperthermals like the PETM unless GHGs are efficacious and powerful climate forcings?

    You never did say.

    But it matters. GHG forcing produce paleoclimate hyperthermals. Unless the laws of physics have changed, it will do so now. Won’t it, Sunny?

  20. #20 bill
    November 23, 2013

    Yep, when these clowns manage to vote in new laws of physics, and not just the Black Abbott, they’ll truly have saved the world.

    Until then; turkeys.

  21. #21 Mack
    November 24, 2013

    “…..unless GHGs are efficatious and powerful climate forcings?” parrots this fuckwitted AGW brainwashed pommie prat BBD. What “FORCING?”. This “forcing” is a word conjured up by you wacko AGW science fraudsters and spouted out in a know all, authoritative fashion when you really don’t know WTF you’re talking about. .
    Gotta luv that word “Forcing” …”greenhouse forcing” ..”greenhouse gas forcing” …”climate forcing of greenhouse gases” Yeah , The Forcing. The force is strong in this one Obi wan. You haven’t got a brother called Luke Skywalker have you BBD? He’s also fucked in the head with AGW. .

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    November 24, 2013

    Mackulus.

    The concept of a ‘forcing’ is a very concrete and particular one, based in solid physics.

    Your ignorance and antiscience is showing.

  23. #23 Mack
    November 24, 2013

    OK Bernerd ..you explain to me, in simple terms, how the “radiative forcing” of a “greenhouse gas” works. No links allowed.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    November 24, 2013

    Mackulus.

    There’s a thread somewhere on Deltoid where I actually bothered a while back to play this exact “pretend that I’m as stupid as I pretend to be (except that I’m not pretending)” game of yours, or of one of your denialist comrades. However, if you will admit that you don’t understand even the very basics of ‘greenhouse’ gas radiative forcing I might actually deign to repeat myself.

    Oh, and about that stupidity thing… you’ve slipped into using one of the monikers that used to be turned by your Sunspot sock – do try to maintain at least a semblance of the pretence.

  25. #25 bill
    November 24, 2013

    You have been warned, turkey.

  26. #26 Lionel A
    November 24, 2013

    MackaYack

    OK Bernerd ..you explain to me, in simple terms,…

    That you have to ask such a question after such a long, long time means that there are no terms simple enough for you to understand.

    “This is a significantly lower bar than Arthur C Clarke had in mind for the inability of some to distinguish science”

    See my #55 here for full reference.

  27. #27 BBD
    November 24, 2013

    Sunspot seems freaked:

    this fuckwitted AGW brainwashed pommie prat BBD.

    Woo!

    This is what deniers do when confronted with questions they cannot handle because they are powerful illustrations of the fact that GHG forcing * causes the climate system to heat up.

    Sunny cannot explain the PETM without admitting that its very existence is empirical evidence that GHG forcing is real and powerful.

    Poor Sunny. All he can do is implode into an abusive rant and pretend that he doesn’t know what forcings are. Pitiful.

    * * *

    * Look it up you lazy arse.

  28. #28 Lionel A
    November 24, 2013

    Aye! MacksYack is as transparent as a Pack-a-Mac.

    As for forcings, I’ll wager that he could not correctly categorise a number of forcing types as either positive or negative.

  29. #29 Lionel A
    November 24, 2013

    Just to remind everybody, not that the regulars here need such, about those who have corrupted the dialogue over global warming and climate change:

    Greedy Lying Bastards – Trailer (GLB).

    I am watching the full programme on DVD at the moment.

    I will follow this with Chasing Ice by James Balog.

    I watched the first few minutes last evening and have to admire Balog for his tenacity, perseverance, photography skills and ability to conceptualise what is happening. Recommended. Note the positioning of this in the UK by the co-operative.

    Now I wonder who paid for the appointment of an incompetent to head the Co-operative Bank and thus make it fail, IOW sabotage. Can’t have people supporting an ethical organisation can we now Downing Street.

    Find a copy of this book Fracking The UK and find out why there is a dreadful stink emanating from Whitehall, and many district councils, right now.

    Discover how devious an organisation Cuadrilla is, how incompetent have been their operations thus far, and how coy they are about their operation of fracking by stealth. Do not take any statement about exploratory wells only at face value.

    Find out how many wells will have to be drilled (and people moan about wind turbines – have they really no idea) across the UK to gain a fraction of what they are bragging about and then they frack the wells again where more wells will fail and leak than during initial drilling.

    There is a segment in GLB (at about 0:15:00) where a smug, well fed, ignorant Morano bullshits loads followed by Balog telling it straight. Morano is not worthy of cleaning Balog’s ice-boots.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    November 24, 2013

    OK MackaYack if you cannot be bothered to understand words then watch this:

    Climate Change 2013 Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis .

    H/T Sou.

  31. #31 chek
    November 24, 2013

    Shorter Mackspot: Please inform me, but don’t use any of your government funded or government approved educational sources. Crank bilgespew and, if different, corporately-sponsored disinformation only please.

  32. #32 rhwombat
    November 25, 2013

    Now that’s a worry. My post about the spuriousness of Monckton’s alleged ‘clinical trials’ has disappeared. What’s going on Tim?

  33. #33 Bernard J.
    November 25, 2013

    rhwombat, I thought something was missing…

  34. #34 Craig Thomas
    November 25, 2013

    Maybe somebody has been “interfering unlawfuly on the internet”?

  35. #35 rhwombat
    November 25, 2013

    I doubt it, Craig. I probably exceeded my split infinitive quota, or possibly rendered Tim too vulnerable to a little legal larceny launched by the loony lord for my vituperative vexatiousness and pusillanimous prose. I should be done for Grand Theft Alliteration. Such is life.

  36. #36 Mack
    November 25, 2013

    OK then, Bernerd just rabbits on with crap about Sunspot socks etc. as the nutty stuffy academic he is. comment #24
    Zero content , zero input, zero effort . Just one big fat zero for you teach.

  37. #37 Mack
    November 25, 2013

    Now this AGW brainwashed BBD sends me to wiki for some wiki-science, and wiki says…..for ” Radiative Forcing”….” In climate science radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause?? in units of watts/sq.m. of earth’s surface??”.
    This second sentence from wiki. is in contradiction to the first and is purely confusing double dutch. The earth’s surface is the earth’s surface, space is space. I understand that the earth’s surface is what we stand on, and that space begins at the TOA (top of atmosphere) ie at about the exosphere. That’s REALITY when considering RADIATION from the sun , radiation at earth’s surface, or any radiation balance or imbalance.
    Incoming radiation at the TOA ,and radiation at the earth’s surface., for your edification BBD.
    And of course wiki says that what the “radiative forcing” is quantified as … watts/sq.m. eh BBD
    So here we are once again with you, BBD, the AGW brainwashed fuckwit, not able to come up with the numbers in watts/sq,m. to support your quack “greenhouse theory.”
    BBD the believer….he who says that “it’s obvious” the atmosphere is stopping the oceans from becoming a frozen ball. What’s life like in your padded cell?

  38. #38 rhwombat
    November 25, 2013

    I think it’s doing the chicken dance, but one is never quite sure with socks, like Spammy McSpot, worrying about the corruption of their precious bodily fluids by the evil soshulists at the ABC.

  39. #39 BBD
    November 25, 2013

    Sunny

    It’s not my fault if you cannot understand the words!

    Instead of rolling around in your ignorance like a pig in shit, why not just explain all the strange facts? Like why huge increases in atmospheric GHGs and climate hyperthermals go together? And how the climate system propels itself out of albedo-locked Snowball states?

    These are the questions that you dodged.

    I think you have a mighty problem with this because events like Snowball terminations, the PETM and ETM-2 and the Mid-Eocene Climatic Optimum are empirical evidence that GHGs are indeed powerful climate forcings. And you can’t handle that because you are sunk to the ears in denial, aren’t you Sunny? So far gone it’s pretty well indistinguishable from mental illness.

  40. #40 BBD
    November 25, 2013

    So here we are once again with you, BBD, the AGW brainwashed fuckwit, not able to come up with the numbers in watts/sq,m. to support your quack “greenhouse theory.”

    Even linking this muppet to the information he claims he wants isn’t enough. Even with the numbers right in front of him, he still moans that he hasn’t been answered. What is wrong with his brain?

  41. #41 Lionel A
    November 25, 2013

    What is wrong with his brain?

    It has been disabled by fossil fuel funded propaganda just like the brains of this family:

    Australian family sets Christmas lights world record.

    I wonder what those with homes and other property destroyed or family killed or injured, by early onset wild-fires will think?

    Season of good will or wilful misuse of energy?

  42. #42 BBD
    November 25, 2013

    Sometimes Lionel, I am at a loss. I simply do not know how to deal with the Sunspots of this world. People who elevate bad faith to a way of life. People who reject the facts, the evidence, the truth with a fervour akin to religious zeal. People who will not fucking learn no matter how often you put the information they need to improve their understanding right under their noses.

    People who are paranoid and so warped by their own sense of inadequacy that they hate, fear and mistrust scientists and science – which really means “intelligent people and knowledge”. Hate instead of curiosity. Seeing conspiracies where there are none. Aggressively rejecting any and every opportunity to learn.

    It’s outside the realm of my experience. I literally cannot imagine what it must be like to be Sunny and the rest of the climate clowns. They aren’t in the same mental space most of us inhabit, which is why I’ve increasingly come to regard them as mentally ill.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    November 25, 2013

    …mentally ill.

    Certainly mentally defective and sociopathic.

    It is the ‘Me Me Mine’ syndrome and demonstrates a lack of evolutionary development away from the bludgeon of the hunter gatherer life style (have to kill, capture, grab everything in sight in spite of need) to the more co-operative survival skills which are now required.

    From the ideas of Jared Diamond (and I note attempts of late to deprecate his work) these, the Macksorwhatevers, are the ‘Easter Islanders’.

    BTW I have just added the new SkS widget which is best with FireFox as IE mungs it. Yes it is IE not the web page, that from BobS.

  44. #44 chek
    November 25, 2013

    The important thing about cranks theories from crank theorists like Mackspot are that they’re never tested (to destruction).

    As soon as a challenge is mounted the Mackspot style theorist disappears and lays low until the coast seems clear to re-iterate their nonsense again until challenged. At which point the cycle repeats, again and again ad nauseam.

    Which is one reason mainstream peer-reviewed science as used by governments (or any other would-be rational body) is held up to crank ridicule.

    A crank can’t be persuaded to rationality. They can only be left to abandon crankdom of their own volition, most likely when chickens come home to roost if at all..

  45. #45 turboblocke
    November 25, 2013

    Multisock at #37. I think you’ve misunderstood Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of earth’s surface. as
    … watts per square metre at the earth’s surface.

  46. #46 Mack
    November 26, 2013

    Sorry turboblocke at # 45, the thermosphere is also part of the Earth’s atmosphere and for radiative calculations of energy gain or loss from this planet…must also be considered….much to the chagrin of the concocters of this quack “greenhouse” theory. Hence this tropopause cloak of nonsense.

  47. #47 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    Hence this tropopause cloak of nonsense.

    You are the one hiding behind a cloak of nonsense. Stop the transparently diversionary bollocks and address the questions you are desperately trying to evade. See #39.

    Let’s see you demonstrate some intellectual honesty, for the first time ever at Deltoid.

  48. #48 Mack
    November 26, 2013

    @ BBD # 39 It’s the SUN stupid . What part of “sticking a snowball in front of a heat -lamp and it melts ” don’t you understand, you clueless, gullible, myopic, indoctrinated twat.

  49. #49 Mack
    November 26, 2013

    @ BBD # 40…” Even with the numbers right in front of him”
    Well what I read is…”Radiative forcing for doubling of CO2 as calculated by radiative transfer code Modtran” Modtran is just model formulae with built in huge assumtions, all unreal and all wrong. ie. crap in..bullshit out. Hi-tran , Modtran, whatever, the numbers in front of me BBD, are all bullshit and fantasy. Next.

  50. #50 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    Oh, and to pre-empt any more diversionary bollocks on the height of the TOA, it is not explicitly defined and will vary depending on sub-discipline. The range is tropopause to mid-stratosphere. Deniers have previously attempted to twist this into an anti-science argument but it fails when you point out that so long as studies are internally consistent – and they generally are – there is no problem.

    The fake argument about observational – model comparisons being invalidated by TOA definitional uncertainty is dealt with in Loeb et al. (2009).

    Now back to hyperthermals as evidence for the efficacy of GHG forcing.

    How can they *not* be, Sunny?

  51. #51 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    The sun wasn’t hot enough to overcome the albedo effect in the first place, or the Snowball Earth could not have happened you clueless, gullible, myopic, indoctrinated twat.

    * * *

    the numbers in front of me BBD, are all bullshit and fantasy. Next.

    Denying evidence isn’t even an argument, Sunny. It’s just the crudest form of denial. Doesn’t even merit a response. You lose by default.

  52. #52 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    You are mentally ill, Sunspot. Really. You need to stop this stupidity and get yourself medical help. Ranting at me on the Internet isn’t going to do you any good at all, in fact I think being confronted with your illness actually forces you to retreat deeper into denial.

  53. #53 Mack
    November 26, 2013

    Gotta luv the verbal crap from this BBD ignorant fool.
    ” The fake arguement about observational – model comparisons being invalidated by TOA definitional uncertainty is dealt with in Loeb et al 2009″
    Nah BBD, it reads like this….”The real arguement about observational – model comparisons is highlighted by the fake definition of the atmosphere chosen as 20km by Loeb et al 2009″

  54. #54 Wow
    November 26, 2013

    “@ BBD # 39 It’s the SUN stupid ”

    what? Do you believe only you have ever spotted that glowy ball thing that comes up during the day, Spots?

    No wonder you fail so hard “explaining” your points: your gauge of how dumb people are is well out of kilter.

    PS “Gotta luv the verbal crap” and ” ignorant fool.” from Spots is LOL-worthy to the max.

  55. #55 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    There you go again. First you dismiss the AGGI (greenhouse gas forcing data) as “all bullshit and fantasy” and now Loeb et al. 2009 is “fake”.

    You can’t simply dismiss everything you don’t like as lies, Sunny. That’s symptomatic of mental illness – pathological denial.

    Go and see your doctor and get referred to a mental health specialist. Now.

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    November 26, 2013

    Mackulus.

    Before we chip away again at your ‘understanding’ of the greenhouse effect, would you care to explain to the world how a sun with flat-to-decreasing output over the last few decades can simultaneously warm a planet, and do so by especially causing disproportionate warming in winter and at night?

  57. #57 Wow
    November 26, 2013

    Some variation on “GCR!”, but ask how GCRs will do that and you get “Whooosh!” as the goalposts are shifted and a link that doesn’t answer the query is pushed as an answer to the query.

  58. #58 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    If “it’s the sun”, then how the BF did the climate system first enter a Snowball state? This is what Spots overlooked.

    It’s really that simple to demonstrate that it’s not the sun. The albedo cooling has to outweigh solar forcing for the Snowball to happen in the first place. Once that has happened, albedo will always outweigh solar forcing in the planetary energy balance unless solar output is cranked up by a significant percentage – much greater than the slight increase due to stellar evolution over ~10Ma. Or unless another forcing is turned up instead.

    Poor Spots is in a very tight corner here, which is why he’s turned nasty and retreated into worryingly pathological denial.

  59. #59 Stu
    November 26, 2013

    Oh, I can answer that for Mack, BBD.

    Snowball Earth occurred because the sun was cool at the time. When it het back up, the earth defrosted. No CO2 needed. See, it’s all just sun cycles that the commie pommie climate scientists are hiding just so they can keep researching. But they are wrong, so there needs to be more research. Just different research, that produces different results. You know, real science that tells us nothing is wrong and even if there were there is nothing we can do.

    That’s how it goes, right?

  60. #60 Stu
    November 26, 2013

    Oh crap, I totally forgot.

    Also, VOLCANOES! Which totally just warm the atmosphere by being space heaters. That they also emit massive amounts of greenhouse gasses is totes not the point because there’s no such thing as greenhouse gasses, and also, forcings are just a commie pommie term that have no real thermometer at 2m in my back yard consequences.

    How am I doing, MackKarenSunspot?

  61. #61 Stu 2
    November 26, 2013

    This paper is relevant to some of what is being discussed here:
    http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/JGRSnowballProof.pdf

  62. #62 BBD
    November 26, 2013

    It’s early work. If you want to see where Pierrehumbert went with that, have a look at Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010) and Abbot et al. (2012). The first deals with hypothesised reduction in equatorial surface albedo and the second with cloud forcing. In each case the amount of CO2 required to force deglaciation falls from unfeasibly high to somewhere between 10,000ppmv and 100,000ppmv – a geophysically plausible range. These came up a while back, btw.

  63. #63 Stu 2
    November 27, 2013

    Yes they did come up a while back BBD but are definitely relevant to many of your posts at this thread.
    The next 2 papers rely heavily on the first one, they have mostly updated and used the foam experiments.
    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.
    The current CO2 ppm is not anywhere near the lowest required estimate for it to make any significant contribution.
    The water cycle is the likely major player according to these studies.

  64. #64 Mack
    November 27, 2013

    Bernerd,
    You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a “multiple sock” from your head. On the strength of that and because it looks like you’ve asked me a genuine question…comment # 56. I’ll respond if you promise to keep it clean without reference to assholes.
    ‘…..especially causing disproportionate warming in winter and at night ?”
    At this point you were going to send me to Sceptical Science where John Cook pulls out some strawman statistics (you know..lies and statistics) saying that the nights are warming faster than the days (over time) This, of course, is evidence of your “greenhouse effect”.
    But the thing is Bernerd, you like all the other gullible believers here have been sucked into a “greenhouse effect” by the compelling illusion of cloud cover at night. (and winter, in your case) keeping things warm.
    Here’s my explanation to Dr Roy Spencer…..
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-75584

  65. #65 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    Stu 2

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Utter bollocks. You clearly have not read either paper. Who the fuck do you think you are dealing with?

  66. #66 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    This is why ‘discussion’ with fake sceptics is such a frustration and a waste of time. They just say stuff. Not having a sodding clue and not doing any reading never gets in the way of saying stuff. And the stuff they say is self-serving lies. Every time. And then they whine that they aren’t taken seriously and everybody hates them. Well what do they expect? High praise and buttered muffins?

    FFS.

    Abbot & Pierrehumbert (2010):

    Recent modeling results have raised doubts about the ability to deglaciate from a global glaciation at atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are realistic for a
    Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth. Here we argue that over the lifetime of a Snowball event, ice dynamics should lead to the development of a layer of continental and volcanic dust at
    the ice surface in the tropics that would significantly lower the tropical surface albedo and encourage deglaciation. This idea leads to the prediction that clay drapes found on top of Neoproterozoic glaciations should be thicker in tropical than extratropical regions. We test this idea by running the FOAM general circulation model (GCM) with an added tropical dust layer of different sizes and albedos and find that the tropical dust layer causes Snowball deglaciation at pCO2 = 0.01–0.1 bar in a reasonable regime of these parameters. We find similar, though more nuanced, results from a limited number of test casesusing National Center for Atmospheric Research’s CAM GCM.

    * * *

    Abbot et al. (2012):

    According to the Snowball Earth hypothesis,
    the entire ocean was covered with ice during these events for a few million years, during which time volcanic CO2 increased enough to cause deglaciation. Geochemical proxy data and model calculations suggest that the maximum CO2 was 0.01–0.1 by volume, but early climate modeling suggested that deglaciation was not possible at CO2 = 0.2. We use results from six different general circulation models (GCMs) to show that clouds could warm a Snowball enough to reduce the CO2 required for deglaciation by a factor of 10–100. Although more work is required to rigorously validate cloud schemes in Snowball-like conditions, our results suggest that Snowball deglaciation is consistent with observations.

    This means that deglaciation occurs in the range CO2 = 0.01 – 0.1 bar (10,000 ppm – 100,000 ppm). This is the range consistent with geochemical proxies. This range is consistent with earlier work (see above).

    BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations. That’s just gratuitous crap you added in either out of dishonesty or ignorance.

  67. #67 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    Yes they did come up a while back BBD but are definitely relevant to many of your posts at this thread.

    They came up because I referenced them you blithering idiot. Try reading the sodding thread – and the references *you* post. Or by God I’ll show you up for the posturing little buffoon you are.

  68. #68 adelady
    November 27, 2013

    Here’s my explanation to Dr Roy Spencer…..

    Regardless of the content, I would never venture so far as to explain anything to Dr Roy Spencer.

    I might, just, dare to ask a question in a leading fashion if it was a topic I felt confident on. Normally I’d leave it to the folks with the credible credentials.

  69. #69 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    adelady

    To cap this staggering hubris, the SunSock self-describes in that comment as:

    an internet trained armchair climatologist

    I mean WTF? Words just bloody fail me sometimes.

  70. #70 Mack
    November 27, 2013

    It’s called humour you sad-assed fuckwit.

  71. #71 Wow
    November 27, 2013

    BBD there’s no need to show what a blundering moron Spots is, they’re doing a sterling job themselves of proving THAT case.

    Use the shit-flinging fuckwit as a psychological punching bag and vent the frustration of dealing with the less moronic, but still incapable of changing their mind morons you meat IRL and on more sane locations on this deserving thundering moron.

    Because apparently Spots gets off on this sort of thing. Thrives on it, apparently. No other explanation can cover it: they either benefit or enjoy displaying such rank and obvious ignorance.

    I.e. they’re a troll.

    You’re not feeding the troll, you’re using it.

  72. #72 Wow
    November 27, 2013

    meat == meet.

    Auto-correction on fingertips is uninstallable.

  73. #73 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    No it isn’t. I read your comment at Spencer’s. You were serious. And now, called out for your ludicrous arrogance, you are lying to cover your embarrassment. There’s nothing humorous about liars, especially ignorant, mentally ill climate liars.

  74. #74 Wow
    November 27, 2013

    Really, spots, humour?

    It needs to have some possibility of being funny to be that.

    It’s about as “funny” as a threat to kill your dog.

    “Oh, I was only JOKING!”.

  75. #75 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    Wow – we crossed.

    I do use Socks as a punchbag. I thought that was obvious. The pressure-valve helps keep me civil and sane elsewhere. IOW, it is as you suggest.

  76. #76 bill
    November 27, 2013

    ‘As I was explaining to Jim Hansen only the other day…’

    Keriste on a bike, the Stupid is bottomless!

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    November 27, 2013

    You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a “multiple sock” from your head.

    Not really, but perhaps if I’d stuck to “Mackula”, or even less subtlely to “Macula”, it would have been more apparent.

  78. #78 Mack
    November 27, 2013

    That’s OK Bernard,
    While you’re over at Roy’s place you might want to take a look at this comment…..
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341
    which then has probably caused this…..
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
    Tim might be aware of this and hence the perpetual open thread…..bye.

  79. #79 Wow
    November 27, 2013

    “I thought that was obvious.”

    It’s not to some, however, BBD. You will get some going “Don’t feed the trolls”.

    In the words of Bill Withers, “It all depends on what you do.”. Use him up.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    November 27, 2013

    It’s called humour you sad-assed fuckwit.

    And there you just double down on the ignorant stupid. If that is your sense of humour then there is little hope that any explanation of anything will make an impression on that tortured thing that passes for your brain.

    But the thing is Bernerd, you like all the other gullible believers here have been sucked into a “greenhouse effect” by the compelling illusion of cloud cover at night. (and winter, in your case) keeping things warm.

    Oh you twerp, the reduction of diurnal temperature differences demonstrates that it is not the sun causing warming but all the heat building up in Earth’s systems because heat is accumulating faster than escaping thanks to the properties of GHG molecules and how they respond to specific wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum.

    Here you are learn some stuff .

    But fat chance of that latter happening for you have been pointed to that and other sources previously. So, if you conti9nue refusing to study the subject at hand then you have no grope with any rough dealings you get here.

    Another thing check out the film ‘Chasing Ice’ by James Balog a guy who has put his health and finances on the line to show the world what is happening to the cryosphere, and happening so fast that rapid geological change is under way thanks to that warming. It is partly due to the melting of all that ice that the surface temperatures have not gone up in tune with the increase in energy imbalance.

    When all that ice is gone, displacing billions of people from the rising seas (the film is a stunning representation of how the meltwater drains through moulins and runs out between the overlaying ice and the bedrock, causing further instability.

    I mean, heck, the shit is now hitting the fan and we are getting it back.

    WTF can you not understand this!

  81. #81 Lionel A
    November 27, 2013

    And another thing for the clueless intransigent barstewards here,

    just up at Coby’s place , study it closely and meld with information that you will gain if you follow the advice to study in the post above.

  82. #82 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    All SunSock’s silly physics denial and gross misunderstandings of the basics (see his Spencer links – put down your coffee first) has not equipped him to answer two simple questions:

    1/ How do we explain hyperthermals *without* CO2 forcing?

    2/ How did the climate system get out of the albedo-locked icehouse state of Snowball Earth *without* CO2 forcing?

    * * *

    Hey, Sunny, if CO2 has a cooling effect and there is no positive WV feedback, why was it so hot ~50Ma (Eocene Climatic Optimum)? CO2 was ~1500ppm then and only ~280ppm in the pre-industrial Holocene but the climate system has slowly cooled for the last fifty million years. This appears to falsify both your hypotheses. Care to explain?

    PS – it wasn’t the sun. Solar output has increased slightly (~1W/m^2) since then as a result of stellar evolution. But we got *cooler*, remember. Much cooler.

    Cenozoic surface temperature (after Zachos et al. 2008).

  83. #83 Lionel A
    November 27, 2013

    Fracking in the UK.

    The ugly side of police activity around an area being ‘processed’ without planning permission, and some would say we have democracy!

    Fracking the UK, Latest Digest, Week Ending 1st December 2013

    Watch the included video.

    There are Australian companies, if you can call them that, involved in the UK scenario as well as with the Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and allied processes where underground coal seams are ignited and driven off hydrocarbons collected. Also driven out are millions of gallons of water that has been marinading the coal seams for millennia and thus contains many toxic nasties including radioactive materials.

    This nonsense will have to be stopped.

    Maybe when those police thugs start seeing their property values undercut, and the properties uninsurable because the ground upon which they are built has been fracked or CBMed beneath.

  84. #84 Stu
    November 27, 2013

    @Stu 2:

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You suck at this. Stop embarrassing yourself.

    @KarenMackSunspot:

    You are now refering to me as Mackulus, so seem to have exorcised some personality as a “multiple sock” from your head.

    So you are attempting to imply that if at any time anyone fails to refer to you with more than one of your many, many sockpuppets, they are suddenly oblivious of you committing the most pathetic act on a comment thread — sockpuppetry — and that you are now being respected, and because of that you will suddenly deign to answer a question?

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you pathetic lying weasel.

  85. #85 BBD
    November 27, 2013

    @ Stu

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you pathetic lying weasel.

    Stop pussyfooting around! SunSock needs a firm hand.

    ;-)

  86. #86 rhwombat
    November 27, 2013

    Stu. Well said. Odds that Stu2 is another sock of the antipodean version of the swiss psychopath?

  87. #87 Stu 2
    November 28, 2013

    BBD.
    @ # 65 to #67.
    ” Who the fuck do you think you are dealing with?”
    Is this a question that you need me to answer?
    If it is, I have no idea who you are and further I find your question completely irrelevant, including much of the rest of your comments to me that have resorted to petty name calling and rather ironically some posturing on your part.
    And here:
    “BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations”
    I am wondering why that is your assumption from my comment above?
    The papers were researching the possible influence of CO2 using a number of different GCMs and switching different variables on and off.
    They conclude that anything under 10,000ppm of CO2 would not play a significant role in deglaciation.
    That does mean that deglaciation can occur without CO2 playing a role.
    Considering levels are at approx. 400ppm currently the bulk of your assertions at this thread are not really supported by this research but neither are they disproved.
    I note earlier in this thread that you dismiss any influence of volcanism via heat and particles other than C02 as inconsequential (I think you called them tiny flickers?).

    These studies further conclude that, the accumulation of dust and cloud formations and therefore the well known physical relationship between the sun and H20 (including the albedo effect) is the most likely contributor.
    Here:
    “Snowball by the mechanisms discussed in section 2. It
    seems highly probably that 1–10 m of dust would have a significant effect on the surface albedo and potentially other
    important processes such as evaporation” (page 5)

    These papers are relevant to what is being discussed at this thread and whether you linked them first or not doesn’t mean anything.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    November 28, 2013

    They conclude that anything under 10,000ppm of CO2 would not play a significant role in deglaciation.

    That does mean that deglaciation can occur without CO2 playing a role.

    Woah! You have it arse backwards.

    The quotes that BBD provided indicate that in their model deglaciation requires AT LEAST 10,000ppm CO2 in the presence of a dust layer in order to occur. Without the dust layer CO2 concentrations of about 200,000ppm would be required.

    I note that in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation. A requirement that must be satisfied for an event to occur is generally considered to “play a significant role” in that event.

    You appear to be arguing that because certain minimum threshold CO2 levels are a requirement in their models (those thresholds being quite high without the dust layer and merely high with the dust layer) that below those threshold CO2 levels deglaciation can occur.

    I do not think you understand what “required” means.

  89. #89 BBD
    November 28, 2013

    Stu 2

    Oh come on. At least try. Read Lotharsson’s comment, then re-read what I have said to you so far, then read the papers properly with your brain switched on. You are making a comically horrible mess out of this.

    * * *

    And inter alia, cut out the shite. Eg. this sort of thing:

    “BTW neither of these papers discusses the role of CO2 vs albedo in the events leading up to Snowball Earth glaciations”

    I am wondering why that is your assumption from my comment above?

    At #63 you wrote:

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    That is you saying that the “major finding” of these papers was that CO2 had no influence either on the inception or termination of SE climate states.

    I’m not posturing – I am pointing out that you are making stuff up and that everything you say is rubbish. Now you are denying this, which is deeply stupid of you given the evidence before our eyes.

    Stop wasting everyone’s time.

  90. #90 BBD
    November 28, 2013

    And since you seem incapable of understanding the depths of your transgression at #63 and consequently my reaction to your apparent mendacity at #65, I suppose I’d better go over that as well.

    Is this a question that you need me to answer?

    No, you are being as literal minded as a bucket. It was a rhetorical question prompted by your astonishing misrepresentation of the Abbot papers. It was a near-involuntary reaction. How could you *possibly* expect to get away with this factual inversion – however confidently delivered – when you are discussing these studies with someone who has actually read them? WTF was going through your head?

    If you aren’t simply lying then you are desperately floundering out of your depth and it’s well past time you let this go and avoid similar forays into the unknown in future. I’ve had to warn others not to misrepresent paleoclimate studies here and now I’m warning you.

  91. #91 chameleon
    November 28, 2013

    OMG!
    No wonder this place has turned into a sad and bitter little backwater!
    BBD et al are in overdrive!
    There really is no point Stu 2. Unless you bow and scrape and non conditionally agree with the meme, you will be either:
    a) Personally attacked and/or accused as a conspiratal ‘sock’ or:
    b) They will sook and whine to the moderator and you will be moderated out of the discussion or:
    c) Even put into a separate thread.

  92. #92 Lionel A
    November 28, 2013

    Christopher Monckton on climate modellers asked in a rather garbled question and here teased out:

    Q

    “What do you think about the climate scientists who actually do, hum ??? find that in their research ‘inaudible’ one hundred percent up, no doubt man-made, climate change is upon us and something we ‘should stop?’. So, you know, what about that science.”

    A Monckton

    ‘The only scientists who are capable of coming to a conclusion as barking mad as that are computer modellers. These are typically zitty teenagers sitting in dark rooms with a can of Coca-Cola and too many doughnuts and playing on their X-Box 360s.’

    Brought to you from ExposeTheBastards

    Who is barking mad here?

    I wonder if MS realise that their X-Box users are portrayed in this way? I’ll bet they are pleased.
    :

  93. #93 Stu 2
    November 28, 2013

    BBD,
    I don’t have a single problem with Lotharrson’s comment other that the fixation on the word *required* and some irrelevant personal comments about what I *appear* to be arguing. Lotharrson clearly notes that:
    in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.
    Which is not particularly different to my comment other than the fact that these papers also point out that the water cycle is most probably the key player.
    All 3 papers very clearly point out that much more needs to be done to better understand the role of CO2 in deglaciation.
    Your comment on the other hand looks more like a strange combination of teacher’s pet and schoolyard bully. Both being rather childish and not really worth taking seriously.

  94. #94 BBD
    November 28, 2013

    Which is not particularly different to my comment

    Um, no, you have reversed yourself. You have gone from:

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    To:

    in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

    And *still* you misrepresent the studies:

    the fact that these papers also point out that the water cycle is most probably the key player.

    No, they deal with factors that may have reduced the amount of CO2 – the requirement that must be satisfied – necessary to trigger deglaciation.

    You are still mixing dishonesty and incomprehension while trying to make out that the faults lie elsewhere.

    I could easily dismiss what you are doing here as rather childish and not worth taking seriously.

  95. #95 BBD
    November 28, 2013

    Before we go any further, please indicate which one of these mutually exclusive positions you accept:

    1/

    The major finding is that the snowball earth & deglaciation doesn’t need CO2 to occur.

    Or:

    2/

    in both cases a significant amount of CO2 is required for deglaciation.

  96. #96 Stu 2
    November 28, 2013

    Smoke and mirrors BBD.
    Those comments are not mutually exclusive. But if you want to argue that they are you go right ahead.

  97. #97 BBD
    November 28, 2013

    Please pick one, as requested.

  98. #98 bill
    November 29, 2013

    They’re not ‘mutually exclusive’? What planet are you on?

  99. #99 Stu 2
    November 29, 2013

    I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.
    That’s according to paleo evidence as well as deglaciation in modern times.

  100. #100 chek
    November 29, 2013

    I believe I live on a planet that experiences deglaciation at CO2 ppm way below the minimum *required* ppm discussed in these papers Bill.

    Well, deglaciation is occurring with the present rising levels of CO2. Perhaps the fact that we’ve warmed well past SE conditions may have something to do with that continuing effect.
    Or are you attempting (but failing) to imply something else?